to correct something I just miswrote: > - if you define it as the ability to "plug and ping" small networks > into the Internet, then (as far as I can tell) we still need > a small piece of protocol beyond IPv6 to have a "pure IPv6" > plug-and-ping solution. in the interim, either PPP or DHCP > will give you an IPv4 address; this combined with 6to4 > gives you a /64 on a plug-and-ping basis, and the protocol work > for this is already done. it should read "...this, combined with 6to4 gives you a /48 on a plug-and-ping basis..." Keith
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Pyda Srisuresh
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Keith Moore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Michael Richardson
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Greg Minshall
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Keith Moore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Hilarie Orman
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables V Guruprasad
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Greg Minshall
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Michael W. Condry
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Keith Moore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Keith Moore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables David R. Conrad
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Keith Moore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables David R. Conrad
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Keith Moore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Eliot Lear
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables V Guruprasad
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables V Guruprasad
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables J. Noel Chiappa
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables David R. Conrad
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables John Kristoff